Deron Williams was a trade. Lopez was a draft pick back to the awful Nets days.

The FA plan is something you can talk about if you 'tank' and by tank I mean clear contracts for cap space.

If your plan is to build a team through free agency while keeping this core, you are limited to the MLE/mini-MLE or minimum contracts. If you use the full MLE you are hardcapped at $4M above the salary cap.

I think you're misunderstanding me. Look at what I said:

The FA plan is actually something we could do even if we tanked potentially.

And then look at my earlier post about the "plan":

Just to add. Idk how Ujiri would do it, but if he could ship out most of our long-term deals (Gay, Fields, Lowry, Novak etc) we could tank and still be set up nicely for the draft. With only the following contracts on the books:

Nice thread. I like how you're breaking down the "Tank vs Anti-tank" and looking at it more thoughtfully and thoroughly.

Could I throw out a 3rd option, just for conversation sake? Look at the Brooklyn Nets model. Go heavy into the luxury to sign a bunch of all-stars, quality FA's etc, and build a team to win now.

With a 2014 free agent class that includes Melo, Munroe, Bledsoe and (why not?) Dirk, why not go for it? Heck, it's not like Mayor Ford hasn't put Tdot on the map.

It would be expensive, require some thrifty trading for good back-ups (something we currently lack)

Try to keep Amir, Hansborough, Ross, Val.....and deal the rest.

Any thoughts as to this approach? (btw, I do believe that the Nets will turn it around as the year progresses, bodies get healthy and the playoffs come onto the radar)

The Brooklyn Nets model was draft a top C (Lopez) and sign to extension using Bird Rights; trade for expensive talent (Joe Johnson) and resign players traded for expensive talent (Williams, Wallace, Humphries); trade resigned players for more expensive players (Terry, PP, KG); use exceptions (minimum and mini-MLE i..e no more than $3M) to sign players.

My reply highlighting how Brooklyn was built and the CBA:

Matt52 wrote:

There is the CBA to work around though.

They have not signed any free agents to anything but an exception.

It was all trades and they resignings with Bird Rights.

This is what you've done when you've acquired your core or trade assets to add to your established core.

What are the Raptors going to get in return for their spare parts right now?

Your reply which is a great one but the conversation was about Brooklyn and building like them:

Nosike wrote:

Question. Isn't the whole premise of your tanking philosophy that we can and should ship out guys like Gay and Lowry for cap relief and picks.

Why are you suggesting that wouldn't be a possibility if we wanted to go after marquee free-agents instead of tanking?

Tbh I don't see anything wrong with either strategy. If we were actually able to ship out Lowry and Gay for cap relief AND tank, I'd have no qualms with drafting a Smart or Exum and then going after Gordon Hayward (who would be an excellent pairing with DD on the wing btw) in free agency.

I had a few more replies about how the Nets were built.

Your post talking about going after players in free agency rather than trading:

Nosike wrote:

But I don't think he was talking about trading for marquee players. I think he was talking about going after them in free agency.

See the bold, although I believe he made a mistake by saying Brooklyn Nets model because they actually traded for most of their guys (except DWill(FA) and Lopez(draft)). The FA plan is actually something we could do even if we tanked potentially.

And that is the entire point: Brooklyn were built through trades and Bird Rights.

Nosike wrote:

But I don't think he was talking about trading for marquee players. I think he was talking about going after them in free agency.

See the bold, although I believe he made a mistake by saying Brooklyn Nets model because they actually traded for most of their guys (except DWill(FA) and Lopez(draft)). The FA plan is actually something we could do even if we tanked potentially.

He was talking about building the Raptors like the Nets. Bringing anything else in to the conversation is not talking about the same thing. So yeah sure your plan/ideas looks good.

Personally I'd rather go another year in the draft ('15) since they already have 2 '16 picks and focus on free agency in 2015 and 2016.

Given that marquee NBA FAs have never come to Toronto, and almost never in other weak markets in general, I'm not sure it should be seen as a feasible plan. ie. "Why not go for it?" Because its a low odds proposition

Regardless, I think Matt52 was pointing out thats not what Brooklyn did. It was all trades.

I just reviewed Brooklyn's moves last summer, yeah...my bad...Brooklyn was built on trades.

However, they did sign FA Alan Anderson....so I'm not completely out to lunch. Lol.

I guess I was curious as to going in the direction of signing veteran FA's and winning now, rather than pinning our hopes to the draft and looking 5 years down the road.

Either way, with our roster...I guess Masai has his work cut out for him.

There's a lot of teams in tank mode, it seems. (Boston, Utah, Sac) There's also a lot of teams with a "win now" approach. (Miami, OKC, Indy)

The Raptors, as we all feared, are stuck hopelessly in between. If the tank for the 2014 draft gets too crowded, why not go the other direction and get veterans that give us a good chance to sneak a division championship in the next couple years.

That was kind of my thinking.

Btw, I really appreciate Matt52's breakdown and analysis. He's why I ask these questions in the first place.

The Brooklyn Nets model was draft a top C (Lopez) and sign to extension using Bird Rights; trade for expensive talent (Joe Johnson) and resign players traded for expensive talent (Williams, Wallace, Humphries); trade resigned players for more expensive players (Terry, PP, KG); use exceptions (minimum and mini-MLE i..e no more than $3M) to sign players.

My reply highlighting how Brooklyn was built and the CBA:

Your reply which is a great one but the conversation was about Brooklyn and building like them:

I had a few more replies about how the Nets were built.

Your post talking about going after players in free agency rather than trading:

And that is the entire point: Brooklyn were built through trades and Bird Rights.

He was talking about building the Raptors like the Nets. Bringing anything else in to the conversation is not talking about the same thing. So yeah sure your plan/ideas looks good.

Personally I'd rather go another year in the draft ('15) since they already have 2 '16 picks and focus on free agency in 2015 and 2016.

I think the issue here is that he said Nets model. He obviously meant build via free agency, but failed to realize that the Nets didn't really do that. Which is clear from him saying " sign a bunch of all-stars, quality FA's etc"

If all options were picked-up, the Raptors would have 12 players under contract for $59.07M, plus the cap hold for their 2014 1st round pick. That would put them well over the salary cap, without even having a starting PG under contract (unless that's the 2014 1st round pick).

Even if Gay & Johnson were the only options picked-up, then the Raptors would have 7 players under contract for $51.99M, plus the cap hold for their 2014 1st round pick. Re-signing Lowry would take up all remaining cap space. If Lowry is renounced, the Raps still don't have room for a max-contract free agent and have less than $10M to fill their roster (until they can only offer minimum contracts).

Without making some moves this season to shed salary going into the offseason (whether that is a "tank" or not), there's no way MU can be a major player in free agency, unless Gay chooses to opt-out of his contract.

If all options were picked-up, the Raptors would have 12 players under contract for $59.07M, plus the cap hold for their 2014 1st round pick. That would put them well over the salary cap, without even having a starting PG under contract (unless that's the 2014 1st round pick).

Even if Gay & Johnson were the only options picked-up, then the Raptors would have 7 players under contract for $51.99M, plus the cap hold for their 2014 1st round pick. Re-signing Lowry would take up all remaining cap space. If Lowry is renounced, the Raps still don't have room for a max-contract free agent and have less than $10M to fill their roster (until they can only offer minimum contracts).

Without making some moves this season to shed salary going into the offseason (whether that is a "tank" or not), there's no way MU can be a major player in free agency, unless Gay chooses to opt-out of his contract.

Not to mention the team options on Hansbrough and Amir have guaranteed money - $5M for Amir and $1M for T. So you can tack on $6M there.

Not to mention the team options on Hansbrough and Amir have guaranteed money - $5M for Amir and $1M for T. So you can tack on $6M there.

If the Raptors were to waive them, does the guaranteed portion count against the cap, or is it just paid to the player(s)? I was thinking that it would count against the MLSE pocket-book, but not the cap...

If all options were picked-up, the Raptors would have 12 players under contract for $59.07M, plus the cap hold for their 2014 1st round pick. That would put them well over the salary cap, without even having a starting PG under contract (unless that's the 2014 1st round pick).

Even if Gay & Johnson were the only options picked-up, then the Raptors would have 7 players under contract for $51.99M, plus the cap hold for their 2014 1st round pick. Re-signing Lowry would take up all remaining cap space. If Lowry is renounced, the Raps still don't have room for a max-contract free agent and have less than $10M to fill their roster (until they can only offer minimum contracts).

Without making some moves this season to shed salary going into the offseason (whether that is a "tank" or not), there's no way MU can be a major player in free agency, unless Gay chooses to opt-out of his contract.

haha I didn't mean to cause your day to take a turn for the worse! lol

I think that depressing aspect of the team's roster/payroll situation is precisely why so many people have moved to the 'pro-tank' team. Without moving some of the high-priced players, it's going to be very difficult to improve this team (basically until Gay either opts-out or his contract expires). Plus, as long as this core is kept together (ie: this season and possibly next season), the team projects to be a middle-of-the-pack team that lives on the playoff bubble (ie: quite likely too bad for playoffs and too good to draft a potential franchise talent).

A 'strategic tank' (ie: not a fire-sale sell-off of talent or a straight salary dump for crap) would move some of the high-priced players (ie: Gay & Lowry) at or before this season's trade deadline, for multiple reasons:
- clear cap space for next offseason
- acquire prospects
- acquire draft picks
- improve the lottery positioning of Toronto's own 2014 1st round pick

All 4 of these factors would allow MU to begin proper sustainable team-building sooner, which would likely include free agency (per your suggestion) as part of the building process.

If the Raptors were to waive them, does the guaranteed portion count against the cap, or is it just paid to the player(s)? I was thinking that it would count against the MLSE pocket-book, but not the cap...

This debate was completely dismantled when the Raps hired Ujiri wasn't it? Isn't that the whole point of hiring him, to rebuild the franchise? I honestly just don't get it, if a person is for the Raptors tanking in order to get a high draft pick then that person probably doesn't really like basketball, but rather they like the look of basketball. A person who thinks like this doesn't enjoy watching a good hard played game, but rather the sexyness of a stat sheet. In all honesty I think allot of Raptor fans have been sucked into this IDIOTIC modern basketball game show. How many of these experts just completely shit on the Raptors, and then Raptors fans jump on board with the experts and shit talk their own team!? How about we start shit talking these experts and stick true with your team. Its bad when even the refs have a bias towards the Raptors. I've seen refs calling against the Raptors for so long now that I am getting ready to bail on this corrupt league. Last night against Brooklyn was a prime example, the refs lost the game for them. If I didn't have an allegiance to my Raptors I would say goodbye to the NBA and just support local sports.

Craig wrote:

Hello Folks,

So, we have seen a significant amount of chatter, back and forth between guys wanting Toronto to completely rebuild, and others wishing to make whats here work now. We are calling one group "Tankers", and one group "anti-Tankers". It's important to understand that on both sides, there are guys and gals here who are astute, intelligent and in some cases experienced Basketball minds.

It's true, there are points on both sides, and the one really important reason, is that there isn't always one true way to build a franchise, it changes, always. but what remains is that the real issue guys need to look at is timing in the process of rebuilding. just where is your team?

I, am a steadfast "Tanker" guy. reason being, I believe the assembled talent has been looked at, I know it's being assessed, and whats here, likely cannot compete as built. This gets misunderstood as feeling that as a "tanker" I feel like Toronto will lose games, get a #1 guy and then win. This couldn't be further from the truth. What I'm advocating is a full on rebuild, from assessment, dismantling, developing, and then finishing touches. "anti tankers" point to Indiana as the model they like, when Indian, in reality, had to "tank" to begin the process they are now seeing great rewards from.

I read the following article on Hoopsworld. Maybe its been here before, maybe not. I hope you guys like it. It isn't super detailed, but what it does focus upon is a great understanding of what teams must do. Understanding that different Markets have different obstacles, and therefore the creativity has to be in place to conquer those. But make no mistake, whether you call it a tank, or an anti-tank, or whatever, when you team is consistently bad, a rebuild is necessary, and to do it right, you have to start at the bottom. Its slow. Its painful, but it will pay off.

This has BC fingerprint all over it. No thank you. For one simple reason... this is not a championship team even with the development of two young (promising) bigs. The more I watch #22 in Raps uniform the less I like it. So the second reason... is that I don't believe this this team could contend with Gay as one of the key elements (probably no team, for that matter...) - this is purely subjective. Finally, I don't want to surrender 2014 pick. No way. Ujiri is known for finding talent late in the draft. In nothing else works out - let him pick 2 young players in a loaded draft. Who knows, maybe the bball gods will smile on us that way.

The real question of this tank/no-tank dilemma is how long you give this team/management till they gather a contending (even if it's young) roster...

I agree it's does not look like a championship team but I think we can be conference finalist in 2-3 yrs.. IF gay is willing to opt out adn resign at $13.5 that is good deal we can trade if it's doesn't work after year #1.. I still the tank option is a minmum of 5 years. as core mebers we could keep is ross & Val.. DD/Amir/Lowry/Gay would have to move on.. The minimum I am willing to wait is 2 years to see meaning games in April/May.. I tank option would get us there in 2 years. More sign & trade pieces taht don't fit.. MU & TL will be under pressure come 2016 All Star game .. that is big rebranding.. The worst decision a business can do is rebrand with scrap..

the 2016 rebranding will require a team
1. on the tip of a deep playoff run
2. push to make the playoff after temporay fix (2014/2015)
3. preparing to make a major splash in trade or F/A - example Brookyn Nets rebranding with DWill signing, Joe J trade and Lopez resign..

MU & TL will need to make one of these happen.. if i was betting I would say #1 is their option..
as you want your new brand everywhere.. on the tip of the everyone tongue and they want a piece of it..